Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
NOT SO MUCH "CACKLING" AS "SNORTING IN DERISION."
Responding to Ezra 's and my posts yesterday about Marty Peretz's attack on Desmond Tutu, James Kirchick assists his editor-in-chief:
“Duss's and Klein's criticism consists mostly of ad hominem attacks and a defense of Tutu based primarily, if not entirely, on the fact that he's...well...Desmond Tutu.”
No: Marty Peretz claimed that Desmond Tutu, in a speech last Saturday, “actually threatened Israel -- and not just the State but the whole People.” I responded that this was not true, that it was not a remotely defensible interpretation of anything Tutu said, and linked to Tutu’s remarks (PDF) as proof. If calling Marty Peretz a a liar and a defamer because he lied about and defamed Desmond Tutu qualifies as “an ad hominem attack,” well, then you can bill me.
As for my defense of "Tutu for being Tutu," I suggested neither that he was perfect, nor above reproach. I merely meant (and, frankly, I think this was clear) that the man's career-long commitment to non-violence and reconciliation might serve as something of a rebuttal to the idea that he might suddenly transform into a snarling, violence-threatening anti-Semite one fall afternoon in Boston. That is, I think Desmond Tutu has earned the benefit of the doubt. Conversely, Marty Peretz, who screams “Israel-basher!” every time someone cuts him off in traffic, has not, in my view.
Finally, Kirchick asserts that Tutu “unwittingly slanders the history of the anti-apartheid movement... by comparing it to Palestinian nationalism.” While I realize that Kirchick’s generally dim view of Arabs and Palestinians prohibits him from understanding Palestinian nationalism as anything other than an expression of Jew-hatred, and while I think it’s adorably precocious of him to attempt to instruct Desmond Tutu as to “the history of the anti-apartheid movement,” I feel I’m on safe ground here deferring to Tutu on whether or not the comparison is an appropriate one.
--Matthew Duss
COMMENTS (12)
Ever since I had the misfortune of becoming familiar with Kirchick's work as a guest blogging for Sullivan, I have frankly been shocked at the sheer stupidity of his commentary. (Intelligent conservative Bruce Bartlett, on the other hand, has been wonderful discovery—despite his strained defense of Reagan's racist 1980 campaign.)
I used to think Jonah Goldberg was the bottom of the barrel, but Kirchick's writing strikes me as far beneath anyone to respond. The man either cannot read and understand simple sentences or he is a pathological liar. Neither makes for a good use of time to rebut (unless someone else bothers to take him seriously).
Posted by: Paulk | November 1, 2007 11:58 AM
Marty Peretz: I'll eggs over easy and a side of toast.
Waiter: Would you like coffee or juice with that?
Marty Peretz: What did you say about the Jews?
Waiter: I said juice, sir.
Marty Peretz: Anti-semite!!!
Posted by: joejoejoe | November 1, 2007 12:27 PM
I 2nd Paul's comment above, I had never read Kirchik until recently and it is amazing to find someone who makes Jonah Goldberg look intelligent by comparison.
Posted by: Eric K | November 1, 2007 1:25 PM
Wee Jemmy's some kind of sock puppet Frankenstein of Peretz's making. Fortunately, I have only to unfocus my eyes when reading the Plank and whenever I perceive a reaaaally long block of text, I skip it because it's almost always some steaming pile of Kirchickism. Man, the New Republic can't fold fast enough.
Posted by: Marti Perez | November 1, 2007 1:40 PM
I think it’s interesting that Joel Pollack, the guy whom Kirchick quotes without demurral calling Tutu’s remarks anti-Semitic, takes particular issue with Tutu’s use of "Jews" instead of "Israelis" in a section of the speech. Given the Biblical context of his remarks, Tutu’s use of "Jews" is completely defensible here, I think, and Pollack/Kirchick's interpretation is probably just wrong. But let's assume they're right. Isn't it ironic that the same people who are wont to conflate these ethnic and national identity categories--i.e. Jewish and Israeli--are smearing Tutu for (allegedly) ... conflating these ethnic and national identity categories.
In other words, in the Peretz/Pollack/Kirchik worldview, criticize Israeli policies as Israeli policies and you clearly possess animus toward Jews and are thus an anti-Semite (e.g. Peretz calls Jimmy Carter a Jew-hater for criticizing Israel and Alvin Rosenfeld screams "new anti-Semitism" at critics of Israel). If, on the other hand, in the course of criticizing Israeli policies you rather casually conflate Israelis and Jews, as Tutu (allegedly) did--the same conflation Peretz is wont to make in his analyses--well, then of course you're a Jew-hater. I mean, isn't it obvious--there was Tutu, characteristic sneer plastered on his face, plainly referring to "the Jews," right? The guy's not even trying to hide it.
Posted by: Justin | November 1, 2007 1:53 PM
"Marty Peretz, who screams 'Israel-basher!' every time someone cuts him off in traffic"
Thanks, Matthew. It'd been a while since I spat coffee on my monitor...
(any chance you could craft a mini-play featuring an argument between Marty Peretz and Abe Foxman?)
Posted by: Chris | November 1, 2007 2:01 PM
adorably precocious
Posted by: Carl | November 1, 2007 2:38 PM
Since Kirchick doesn't know the history of the anti-apartheid movement, it should be mentioned that Nelson Mandela and the ANC received support from pro-palestinian groups and the PLO during his imprisonment. Meanwhile, Israel and South Africa were allies who actually cooperated on testing a nuclear weapon.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2007 3:57 PM
Why are we discussing Marty Peretz on Tapped?
Racist comments from a magazine editor might be newsworthy if the magazine itself were newsworthy.
If "National Alliance Bulletin" publishes racist stuff, it ain't news since it's published by William Pierce and the National Alliance.
Likewise, it simply ain't news when TNR publishes racist bullshit, since we all know about Marty Peretz.
The less publicity you give him the better.
Stop reading TNR. Stop talking about TNR. Stop linking TNR.
You and TAP will be better for it.
Posted by: Retrogrouch | November 1, 2007 4:40 PM
"I merely meant (and, frankly, I think this was clear) that the man's career-long commitment to non-violence and reconciliation might serve as something of a rebuttal to the idea that he might suddenly transform into a snarling, violence-threatening anti-Semite one fall afternoon in Boston. That is, I think Desmond Tutu has earned the benefit of the doubt."
Too bad Rush Limbaugh didn't deserve the same benefit of a doubt when it came to smearing him regarding his years-long support of our troops. What a hoot!
Posted by: sbj | November 1, 2007 8:02 PM
sbj that was a truly acrobatic change of subject; nicely done.
Great post Matt; contra Retrogrouch, it does ultimatley advance the discourse to call bs on Peretz's tired tactic, until its so useless its just not used any more.
Posted by: jgg | November 1, 2007 8:10 PM
Did sbj really compare Rush Limbaugh to Desmond Tutu?
Posted by: John | November 2, 2007 12:04 PM